This is not a new topic of course. It provoked furious debate across the blogosphere and in the media last month after an American blogger, Kathy Sierra, received what some people called death threats from an anonymous poster. Tim O'Reilly, the person said to have coined the term Web 2.0, and Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales recently proposed a draft bloggers' code of conduct that they hope will serve as a guideline for blogging.

The draft states: "We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation."

The suggested guidelines include not "[saying] anything online that we wouldn't say in person", not allowing anonymous comments, requiring commenters to supply a valid email address, and to ignore trolls.

Most mainstream media (MSM) websites already have their own terms and conditions for blog comments, and smh.com.au is no exception. The Guardian's Comment is free blog site requires users who post comments to register, while The New York Times requires users submit an email address before they post a comment.

There are two issues that can be discussed here. One is why some people write nasty remarks, and two, whether online discussions should be governed by a code of conduct because of such nasties.

So why do some people post comments that are threatening, abusive, violates the privacy of others or libellous? Is it because of the opportunity for anonymity on the internet? Are people more likely to express their views about something if they can't be identified? Some might argue that the anonymity that online discussions offer allow people to get away with cyberbullying. And on some blogs, nasty comments seem to push discussions towards a spat between two groups of posters who agree or disagree with the blog entry, and so an actual debate about the topic doesn't eventuate.

On the other hand, the anonymity gives posters the freedom to express themselves and to say things that they would normally not say, for eg. in a conversation at a pub or with friends. So one could argue that it's all about free speech and that it espouses a kind of libertarian ideal. (An interesting Op-Art piece in the The New York Times gives a take on the evolution of a blog.)

So is a voluntary code of conduct for the blogosphere necessary? Would it facilitate a better environment for debate? Is managed rather than unmanaged dialogue the most free? There are also legal implications of course. Comments posted on websites have to be moderated, and unlike letters to the editor, for example, blog posters do not have to give their full name and details in order for their post to be published. Yet their comments are still subject to the laws of the land. So does having a code of conduct protect both the bloggers and those who post comments?

Having a set of guidelines, however, could also be seen as censorship. A popular blogger told the The New York Times that "[a]s a writer, it makes me feel like I live in Iran." Who would determine what's acceptable and what's not acceptable? Is having a common framework an attempt to stifle the grassroots-driven nature of the web? Would banning anonymous comments deter people from posting and thus limit the discussion circle? Could one argue that anonymity is sometimes necessary for whistleblowers, for people who want to talk about personal experiences, or for those who want to keep their real life and their online persona separate (not because they are committing a crime, but more for privacy reasons)?

"O'Reilly's campaign misinterprets the internet itself. It treats the blogosphere as if it were a school library where someone - O'Reilly would do us the favour - can maintain order and control. It treats the internet as media, like a newspaper or TV show that is edited and sanitised for our protection. But it's not. The internet is a place. We don't consume content there; we communicate and connect."

So what do you think? Should there be a code of conduct? Is there any point in having one since the internet is such a huge place anyway? And would you prefer to read and comment on an online discussion that is regulated or unregulated?

Posted
by Glenda KwekMay 28, 2007 3:26 PM

LATEST COMMENTS

The internet is about the sharing of information and freedom of speech. Imposing a guideline on what we can and can't say is ludicrous. I don't mean to be harsh here, but if you can't deal with an anonymous user slinging empty threats at you, you shouldn't be on the internet in the first place.

In the last decade of my use, I have encountered more than my fair share of petty insults and death threats. I have never given a second thought to it. It's no big deal.

Posted by: Elliot on May 29, 2007 7:13 AM

"And on some blogs, nasty comments seem to push discussions towards a spat between two groups of posters who agree or disagree with the blog entry, and so an actual debate about the topic doesn't eventuate"

It is for this reason precisely that there should be rules for blog ettiquette. Take smh blogs for instance. A classic example of "sandpit wars" can be seen daily on "Sam and the City", "All Men are Liars" and "Radar". Hence, I rarely post on those forums.

If I want to watch sandpit wars in action, I can go spend a day at the local kindergarten. At least kindergarten children have an excuse of some sort, by virtue of their young age.

Posted by: Michelle on May 29, 2007 9:16 AM

The internet's attraction is also its downfall - anonymity.

This means that it becomes a place for exchange of opinion not discussion.

I value discussion and so don't bother with blogs much. Perhaps there is a place for unregulated blogs where people can rant and be offensive to each and another for those who value discussion and think the ranters need to get a life.

Posted by: Evan Hadkins on May 29, 2007 12:56 PM

Its a shame that we're even talking about it, but yes, some people just don't know how to blog without nastiness. They will be the same people who are nasty in their day to day interactions with others. And undoubtedly, they wouldn't have the courage or conviction to say face to face, what they would post under the convenient veil of anonimity, on a blog.....

I honestly don't know if a code of conduct is going to have much impact, but the fact that its voluntary is probably the most important aspect. You can't force a code of conduct.....

Posted by: Chelley on May 29, 2007 1:29 PM

I doubt a code of conduct would help, but I have noticed that people who resort to invective rarely, if ever, have anything worthwhile to say. So it can actually be quite helpful, because by ignoring vitriolic comments you can filter out the wheat from the chaff.
I do find that it pays to re-read what you have written before posting it too.

And Chelley, I couldn't agree more: take away the anonymity and the nastiness would vanish instantaneously.

Posted by: gromit on May 29, 2007 2:19 PM

There is a need for civility AND censorship on both sides of the line. a Blog gives us heaps of space to vent our passion or lacj of it, and there should be freedom, however, there are more then a few occassions where the ventor is advertising his slimy acid at the expense of the second or even third party. This can happen to the effect that the blog institure might get damaged/become flamable only. this needs censorship, also to protect the website from a 'reputation' it has no influence in. This is monitored by the bloggers civility. then there is the reply-to blog that can become to censoring and civility needs to temper that prospect. So it is on the blogger and on the website to temper these two factors. This will create a space that is loaded with good mature discussions.

Posted by: Lawrence van Rijn on May 29, 2007 2:49 PM

the solution is very simple: cease all posting from anonymous remailers.

they served a need in the past but that need is long gone.

as long as irresponsible idiots can use them to hide their rants there will never be a civil approach to online posting, be it in a blog, forum or usenet.

abusers and bullies will always be present if there is no deterrent, thousands of years of life in a society have demonstrated that with no need for more waste of time.

Posted by: Noons on May 29, 2007 2:58 PM

You can't have people post names, because it can be dangerous and fanatics can track down and attack someone solely based on their opinion.

I believe though, that you should be able to say whatever the F&*k you want. It's up to every host of comments or opinions, to come up with a code of conduct that is right for them.

Posted by: Thursty on May 29, 2007 3:40 PM

We are Anonymous! We are legion!

Posted by: Anonymous on May 29, 2007 3:49 PM

Freedom of Speech is paramount. Reading of Blogs is not compulsory.
If you don't like them don't go there.
Educated people soon tire of junk.
More censorship means more power means more control means more greed.

Posted by: Vanessa on May 29, 2007 3:56 PM

A code of conduct is great, but something tells me that the people who go off-topic and start personal attacks would ignore the code of conduct anyway.

The other thing that's killing online discussions is spam - has anyone seen MySpace lately? 90% of comments are just spam to get people to view other MySpace pages.

Posted by: Pete on May 29, 2007 4:04 PM

/b/ is the cancer killing the internets..

Posted by: Anonymous on May 29, 2007 4:28 PM

As a blogger, if you don't want comments, then don't ask for them. You need to expect that some will not be polite.

As a host and moderator of some forums, and as an active particpator on a few, I find that the more fear a person has toward something, the more violently they respond. And sometimes the energy and feeling of a minority can drown out or discourage others.

But the funniest thing I think is that it is not really any different from life itself. The only real difference is the Internet is the great leveler. For the first time in history and ordinary pipsqueak is able to stand up and yell down a threateningly large thug. i.e. the door to violence has been offered to all.

When I see someone going off, I know that they feel passionately. When I see no activity from anyone else, I know they don't care enough. It's wonderful.

The answer is not censorship (& who censors, anyway?) but an evolved understanding of human nature.

Posted by: Marc on May 29, 2007 4:49 PM

I regularly frequent a forum that is delightfully non-PC. People are jerks as a matter of course, and it's actually very refreshing to see people cutting free and saying exactly what they want to say, not tempering and dumbing it down to please random strangers.

How do you get to know people who always measure their answers and censor themselves?

Posted by: Mr Anonymous on May 29, 2007 5:13 PM

"Who censors", well on my blog I do. I take responsiblity for the content on my pages, both what I write and what my guest write. I've got no problem with anonymous commentors, but I also have a code of conduct post that says if I find the content objectionable I'll delete it (not that I've had to yet, all my commenters seem to be lovely people).

Posted by: Icy on May 29, 2007 5:30 PM

It might be one of the oldest sayings in the book, but it applies perfectly to this brave new world:

'If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!'

I love the rough and tumble of robust blogging. If you like the idea of some tut-tutting school marm deciding what is 'acceptable' to publish, stick to sending letters to Women's Weekly.

Posted by: Chris J on May 29, 2007 5:30 PM

It would be nice if Bloggerís were truthful and didnít defame others with lies (except when issuing a small print warning first).

Regular use of a spellchecker would also be nice, better grammar (but maybe this is the pot calling the kettle black)

Posted by: Jase on May 29, 2007 6:08 PM

A Code of Conduct?? F* off! :)

Seriously, I think guidelines are better than a Code of Conduct. Everything is so regulated these days that it's nice to have at least some arenas not controlled by Big Brother/Big Sister.

Anonymity is essential because people won't speak freely about the skeletons in their closets, which is something that makes blogging valuable.

Ultimately, the best control here is social control, where the acceptance or rejection of behaviours sets the tone. I have seen it in the "sandpit wars", mentioned earlier, where the "baddies" more often than not provide a little entertainment.

Posted by: Googla on May 29, 2007 7:07 PM

For the question to be posed means the Sydney Morning Herald knows beyond doubt that there is censorship,
Why did they ask the question?

For us all to say absurbly in unison "Civility"?
Blood hell!
Don't censor that 'bloody' word, Australian Tourism uses it but it was censored in Great Britain.

Posted by: Len on May 29, 2007 7:23 PM

Maybe I missed the part about how this is supposed to be achieved on a technical level. Parse blog comments for swear words?

I swear when I'm trying to make a point and to show how much I want to make it. It doesn't have to be directed at a particular person, but would this mean my comments would be automatically filtered out?

Conversely, if I threaten someone without using any of the magic "key words", will my comments stay online?

Unless someone plans on sitting down to read every blog and comment in real time as they're posted, it simply won't work.

All this is a moot point anyway because anyone can get free access to a proxy server, a paid VPN like Relakks or just use TOR and you'll never be able to tack them down anyway.

Posted by: Nobody Special on May 29, 2007 8:09 PM

So according to commenters here, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".

What a crock.

You think that graphic and disgusting violent threats of rape, maimings, and murder are benign? They're just arseholes being idiots? If someone said that to you on the street, they could easily be arrested, but getting upset that people say this stuff on the net is "overreacting" and censorship? I'd say on the net it's worse, because of the perceived anonymity. How would you feel if someone emailed a barrage of vile sexually abusive crap to your wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter?

I have a blog. Damn straight I will delete any comments that are abusive or threatening. Threats aren't "free speech". I want people with something of value to say to contribute to my blog, and I want them to feel safe in that they're not going to get abused by trolls. If they want to post vitriol so badly, they can go get their own web site.

There's flamewars and then there's illegal actions. There's "I think you're a complete idiot for thinking X, get a clue", and then there's "I hope you get raped so bad you die, btw I know where you live". If you can't tell the difference, then shut the hell up until you figure it out.

Posted by: Venkman on May 29, 2007 8:29 PM

I have seen nasty situations that have devolved into fights where poster's personal details were published on the net and those people and their families' have been harassed with fake adverts for sexual services on the web and in newspapers etc.. as a result.

Most of the responses on this topic so far seem to be from very genteel people who havent seen some of the REALLY bad stuff that can happen if you get in the wrong side of a nut on the web - they assume a few rude names is the worst you might experience. I am ex-army and have been called everything anyone could imagine in my time and I dont bat an eye-lid at that, but I have not posted comments on some sites because of the possibility that the nutters on them could end up targetting me and my family - free speech with no regulation? Naive bs, I think.

Posted by: yeah right on May 29, 2007 8:35 PM

Elliot smells

Posted by: tony on May 29, 2007 8:59 PM

Hey, Venkman, you sound pretty abusive yourself. I love peace, and will beat the you-know-what out of anyone who disagrees with me, huh?

To use another old saying (yeah, it's me again, pudding brain):

'Chill out, dude!'

Whatever someone writes on a blog, it's only words, Grasshopper, words. Can most of us distinguish between uncouth rambling and witty reparte all by ourselves, without a Net Nanny?

The 'Weekly' says 'Yeth!'

Posted by: Chris J on May 29, 2007 10:32 PM

You should be able to say whatever you like about any particular subject. I mean any intelligent person should be able to distinguish between a rant and a reasonable point of view.

It is an interesting point though as human instinct drives us bloggers to only leave comments on posts that interest us, hence should the post itself have a slanted or present a bias point of view you can expect a diverse range of comments on a post, and i truly believe that you should be able to respond anonymously for privacy reasons in these cases.

Posted by: subske on May 30, 2007 12:37 AM

The internet is people communicating with people.

You can be passionately disagreeing with someone without treating them like dirt.

To bring in censorship is to admit that that we cannot manage ourselves.

Posted by: Denis on May 30, 2007 10:26 AM

A universal code of conduct is impractical. The conduct of a blog depends on the blog. I believe some blogs should have the right to censor/edit comments, particularly when the comment is not relevant to the topic of the blog. The way that smh blogs are at the moment is very free and this enables a great deal of free flowing comment and discussion; unfortunately this also occasionally leads to vexatious comments. Forcing people to register would probably decrease the number of comments posted on the smh blogs, but also decrease the nastiness. Ultimately there are pros and cons to each stance, and the decision is up to the powers that be.

Posted by: Bloggity Blog Blog on May 30, 2007 10:41 AM

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

ó "The Tower of the Elephant", Robert E. Howard, Weird Tales, March 1933.

Posted by: Ray on May 30, 2007 7:26 PM

I probably didn't make clear in the post above that EVERYTHING SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE USER.

As far as decision making goes, that is. But we definitely need to develop a system that gives people the power to filter out what they don't want to see at any given time (this applies to all aspects of the internet, not just blog commenting, search too)

Posted by: John Duncan Edwards on June 1, 2007 12:44 AM

Ladies and Gents

We have a simple choice -

A. A closed society
B. A open society.

From a technology point of view the Australian market is now beginning to understand what Web 2.0 means and the impact of social book marking (eg blogs, wikis) - that is, greater open community communication capabilities.

In todays Internet socially connected world you and I as consumers now ultimately determine which service, technology succeeds or fails (and with that understanding also comes greater responsibility for our actions).

From a business perspective success is achieved not only through a good marketing mix, which every business strives to achieve, but through the 'customer experience' - how the customer's life is made better.

Free open discussion increases market transparency and accountabilty - the market and community placing higher value on community trusted sources.

We are all then warned that we violate any trust at our own risk.

Posted by: Scott Maxworthy on June 1, 2007 10:02 AM

"As a blogger it makes me feel like I am living in Iran."

I am sorry, but what the living FVCK kind of statement is that? (and I would say that if you were standing in front of me).

Comparing living in totalitarian theistic regime to wasting time writing crap on the internet in the "land of the free."

We are living in a society and we abide by the social contract. If you don't want to be part of the contract, see you later, go live in the bush as a hermit.

Sure, feel free to make death threats and to slander people on the internet, but also feel free for them to hire private investigators and either sue you or institute criminal proceedings . . .

Let's all starting up new Nazi parties with our freedom of expression. I hereby invoke Godwin's law.

Posted by: mr_wowtrousers on June 1, 2007 10:49 AM

I dont condone the slanging matches people enter into. But I think one should be allowed to express opinions anonymously on political blogs, and my primary reason for thinking this is that I dont trust our government to let me speak freely if I used my own name. Sure, call me paranoid.

Freedom of speech is only an illusion in Western Society. There ARE topics you won't see written about in our so called free press, one of which is the use of depleted uranium in military testing in Australia.

Posted by: Cedric Not My Real Name on June 1, 2007 11:50 AM

We can not be innocent to think that we live in a free society. Our media is censored more than we care to acknowledge. Further more, we are no different to US, or England, Russia or Iran or any other country.
Unfortunately Iran is getting bad wrap due to political propaganda and some less than intelligent leaders.
To mr_wowtrousers, if you have not lived in Iran don't make claims that is makes you like you are there. If you ever had the privileging of travelling to that part of the world, Iran or any other part of the middle east, you will realise that the its not what propagated in the western media.
People in the less open countries given their lives to speak their words, and it has happened as recently as the murder of the Russian spy in England. So don't pick on a counrty that you don't know much about just becasue i's name is being smeared in this point in time.

Posted by: NM on June 4, 2007 1:31 PM

There's no point in a code of conduct as most blog "contributors" would struggle to read it anyway.

The best thing to do is just to turn off comments completely. Some of the best blogs I read don't allow comments and this helps the quality of the blogs in a number of ways:

a) the blogger doesn't spend their day trawling through the crud posted by the "masses" to ensure they won't be sued for defamation etc. Therefore they have more time for research and quality writing. Two things lacking on most blogs.

b) without the need to generate comments, the blogger can concentrate on writing about quality topics, rather than just posting link bait that will generate lots of hits and comments (otherwise known as flamewars).

For all the "democrats" out there, just because you "can" say something, doesn't mean you "should".

And if you really feel that what you have to say is worth listening to - go start you own blog. Then you and your mum can both read it.

Posted by: Clint on June 9, 2007 2:11 PM

I live in China. You might think my comments are extreme, but liver here for a while and you will think they are tame.

Anyone who vouches for any kind of EXTERNAL censorship or 'blocking' of websites should be shot dead as far as I'm concerned.

Whats starts as 'innocent' censorship WILL end up in an Orwell style society like what the Chinese now have, I've been here in China for 10 years and have seen it in action.

Although individual blog owners definitely need to control what goes on their blogs, but censorship by anyone other than the sites administrator is plain evil, I would happily be executed for the murder of any politician who goes for that, China can jail and kill blog owners, block 60% of the net, poison themselves with fake medicine and all the rest of it, but I want my kids to grow up in a free Australia not a dictatorship.